Kentucky Injury Lawyer Blog

Ford Motor Co. was sued by Pennsylvania car owners who said its hybrid models don't deliver on fuel-efficiency claims. Ford's 2013 Fusion Hybrid and C-Max Hybrid models provide significantly worse fuel economy than the advertised 47 miles per gallon, according to a complaint filed in federal court in Philadelphia. The inaccurate representations allowed Dearborn, Michigan-based Ford to falsely claim those models outperformed competing vehicles, according to the suit.

"Plaintiffs are some of the tens of thousands of consumers who purchased a Fusion Hybrid or C-Max Hybrid, only to be stuck with under-performing, less valuable vehicles that inflict higher fuel costs on their owners," according to the complaint.

The Fusion, redesigned by Ford late last year, was the sixth best-selling model in the U.S. through March. Last month the model was selling from dealer lots faster and at higher prices than Toyota Motor Corp.'s Camry and Honda Motor Co.'s Accord.

"Ford's fuel economy labels are generated in accordance with EPA procedures and protocols," Todd Nissen, a Ford spokesman, said in an e-mailed statement.
Ford knew or should have known that the hybrid versions of the C-Max and Fusion don't deliver advertised fuel ratings, according to the complaint. The company uses a "driveability" test facility to simulate real-world conditions and both cars also come equipped with a SmartGauge on-board computer that displays current fuel economy, according to the complaint.

Ford said in December it's talking to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency about how it tests fuel economy performance on new vehicles amid reports its hybrids fell short of mileage promises. Nissen said today that the company agrees with the EPA "that hybrid fuel economy performance industrywide is far more variable compared to conventional models." "We are open to a dialogue with the agencies to further improve the process for generating fuel economy labels," Nissen said in the statement.

The lawsuit, which seeks damages of at least $5 million, accuses Ford of fraud and violating the state's unfair-trade practices and consumer protection laws.

Employees have filed five lawsuits against Pizza Hut franchises owned by NPC International alleging improper overtime payments. The lawsuits all allege that franchise owners forced or encouraged employees to work off the clock without pay.

One of the suits claims managers forced employees to attend training sessions off the clock, another alleges overtime was not paid to workers who worked more than 40 hours. Another lawsuit filed by employees in Tennessee alleges that waiters and waitresses were required to perform other duties, such as cleaning and rolling silverware in napkins, for more than 20 percent of their hours, but were only paid their server’s wage.

There are multiple state and federal regulations that deal with paying employees, particularly in the restaurant industry. The U.S. Department of Labor allows servers to be paid less than minimum wage if their tips make up the difference. The plaintiffs allege that they should be paid minimum wage for those hours they spent performing jobs in which they didn’t earn tips, as well as overtime pay where applicable. They also alleged they were required to report they had received more tips than they did, so the restaurants wouldn’t have to make up the difference to bring them up to minimum wage, and that they had been required to work off the clock.

A Delaware judge has approved a $123 million class action settlement for sexual abuse victims of a local pediatrician. Dr. Earl Bradley was convicted in August 2011 of several counts of child rape involving his patients and sentenced to 14 life terms, plus 164 years in prison. Bradley videotaped his crimes and kept copies in his office. The tapes were uncovered by the police and used as evidence against him.

The class actions suit against Bradley included more than 900 abuse claims over a period of fifteen years. Some of his victims included infants. Pursuant to the settlement, mediator Thomas Rutter will be responsible for distributing the $123 to the victims. Rutter is instructed to evaluate each of the claims and separate them among five categories based on severity.

Local pizza giant, Papa John’s Pizza is facing a $250-million lawsuit from customers who claim that the fast-food chain illegally sent them 500,000 promotional text messages in 2010.
The lawsuit was granted class-action status by a U.S. District Court judge in Seattle late last week. Participants are seeking $500 for each unwanted text, which were alleged to have been sent without the consumer’s permission.

The company disavowed the program in 2010, sending a memo to all of its corporate and franchise stores that “the practice and process of sending UNSOLICITED messages to mobile devices is most likely ILLEGAL.”

The company did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
The lawsuit could cause “one of the largest damages awards ever recovered under the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act,” according to legal experts.

"This should be a wake-up call to advertisers; consumers do not want spam on their cellphones. If you do not have permission from your customers, do not send them text messages. It's as simple as that."

Merck & Co. Inc. has been a frequent subject on this page, mostly about the litigation involving its drug, Fosamax. However, in other Merck news the pharmacuetical giant has recently agreed to settle a class action lawsuit filed for Missouri consumers over its prescription pain reliever Vioxx in a deal that could cost the drugmaker up to $220 million.

The agreement settles claims that New Jersey-based Merck violated the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act by promoting and selling Vioxx, which Merck pulled from the shelves eight years ago because of evidence it doubled users' chances of suffering a heart attack or stroke.

"This settlement provides benefits that are as good as we could have achieved at trial," said a representative of the class. It was unclear how many consumers might seek reimbursement, which will ultimately determine the value of the settlement.
Merck took a $39 million third-quarter write-off to help pay for the settlement. As part of the agreement, the company agreed to pay attorneys' fees and other costs such as advertising to alert consumers.

The executive vice president and general counsel for Merck, said in a news release it "reduces the uncertainty and ongoing defense costs and helps us remain focused on bringing forward innovative products and services for our customers."

The Food and Drug Administration approved Vioxx as a painkiller in May 1999 but the Justice Department said Merck marketed it almost immediately as a treatment for rheumatoid arthritis. Companies are prohibited from marketing drugs for conditions not approved by the FDA. Vioxx wasn't approved for treatment of rheumatoid arthritis until 2002.

Merck removed Vioxx from the market in September 2004. The Justice Department charged Merck with violating marketing laws and said the company made false statements about its cardiovascular safety to increase sales.

Missouri was among the 43 states , receiving $13.8 million from Merck. While the nationwide suit was over marketing, the newly resolved Missouri case alleged consumer fraud. It was in litigation for eight years.

Merck settled around 50,000 patient lawsuits in November 2007 for $4.85 billion.

Barnes & Noble, the country's largest bookseller, said data thieves hacked into payment devices and may have stolen customer credit and debit card information at 63 of its stores nationwide.

Hackers planted bugs in a single card reader at each of the stores, the company said. Customers swipe their payment cards through the machines and, if using a debit card, enter their personal identification number.

Those PINs may be at risk, with other account information, potentially giving thieves access to customers' private accounts.

Barnes & Noble said it has completed an internal investigation into the "sophisticated criminal effort" and that federal authorities were looking into the crime.

"There is absolutely no indication that any Barnes & Noble employee was involved in this," said spokeswoman Mary Ellen Keating. The company said it also is collaborating with banks, payment card brands and issuers to identify which customer accounts were attacked.

The company's shares fell 11 cents, or 0.7%, to $15.21. They had fallen as much as 3% during regular trading Wednesday.

Though data breaches of retailer websites are well known, experts said the Barnes & Noble attack was unusual in that it happened in stores, not online.

Among the online breaches this year, 1.5 million passwords were stolen when online dating site eHarmony was hacked, not long after a similar attack on social network LinkedIn claimed 6.5 million passwords.

Last year, a breach exposed personal information and possibly credit card data of 77 million customers using Sony Corp.'s online PlayStation network. Analysts predicted the attack could cost Sony some $50 million in lost revenue, customer reimbursements and security defense.

Besides the damage to its reputation, Barnes & Noble will probably face lawsuits from customers.

Transvaginal mesh, a medical product designed to help women with Pelvic Organ Prolapse or urinary incontinence. However, instead of helping women, TVM products have severly injured thousands of women, causing organ perforation, nerve damage, and even death.

In 2011, the FDA ordered the largest TVM manufacturer, Johnson & Johnson, to stop marketing its vaginal mesh product. However, records reveal that J&J continued to sell Gynecare Prolift, it's transvaginal mesh device, for at least another 9 months.

Unfortunately, the case is just one example of the FDA's inability to protect American's from faulty drugs and medical devices sold by powerful pharmaceutical and medical device corporations.

Are Chipotle and Forever 21, a popular food and retail store, have been accused in recent days of fleecing their patrons out of pennies. After Chipotle Mexican Grill Inc. was accused of rounding bills to the nearest 5-cent amount, the restaurant chain said the tactic was a time-saving measure used in especially busy stores. Obviously, the stores did no inform consumers that they were doing this.

But late last month, a class-action complaint was filed against Chipotle in federal court in California alleging that the chain "routinely overcharged" its customers.

Meanwhile, a group of plaintiffs have sued Forever 21 Inc., saying they tried to get refunds for certain items and, each time, they were credited back a penny less than what she paid.

Thus far, Chipolte has only issued the comments stated above and Forever 21 declined to comment on the suit.

Three (3) former employees have sued the company, Wet Seal Inc.; the company is accused of discriminating against black store managers because they did not fit the image the U.S. retailer, which sells clothes for young women, wanted to convey.

The complaint alleges that "the most senior executives" of Wet Seal adopted a "policy and practice" of discriminating against black store managers at Wet Seal and Arden B stores from at least 2008 because those workers did not fit its "brand image."

Wet Seal in a statement said it is an equal opportunity employer with a diverse workforce." We deny any and all allegations of race discrimination and will vigorously defend this matter," the company said.

One of the plaintiffs, who is black, claimed she was replaced by a white employee who had less experience and was paid more, after having overheard the senior vice president lamenting that she wanted a store manager with "blond hair and blue eyes."

The lawsuit seeks class-action status on behalf of more than 250 current and former black managers at Wet Seal, which is based in Foothill Ranch, California. The lawsuit seeks back pay and benefits, punitive damages and other remedies.

The other plaintiffs in the Wet Seal lawsuit include Kai Hawkins, who worked in several of the brand's stores, most recently in Cherry Hill, New Jersey; and Myriam Saint-Hilaire, who also worked in the King of Prussia store, according to the complaint.

This case may remind some followers of United States litigation of the Abercrombie & Fitch case, wherein A & B agreed to pay $40 million and improve diversity to settle that case.
Wet Seal operates about 470 of its namesake stores and 83 Arden B Stores in 47 U.S. states and Puerto Rico.

Five big U.S. retailers filed an antitrust lawsuit against Pfizer Inc and India's Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd on Thursday, accusing them of conspiring to delay sales of generic versions of Lipitor, the best-selling drug in history.

Walgreen Co, Kroger Co, Safeway Inc, SuperValu Inc and HEB Grocery Co accused the defendants of running an "overarching anticompetitive scheme" to keep generic versions of the cholesterol drug off the market until November 30, 2011, 20 months after the original patent expired.

They said the defendants did this by obtaining a fraudulent patent, engaging in sham litigation, entering a price-fixing agreement to delay cheaper generics, and entering arrangements with pharmacy benefit managers to force retailers to buy more Lipitor, whose chemical name is atorvastatin calcium.

"Because of defendants' scheme to delay and suppress generic Lipitor competition, in whole or in part, plaintiffs have paid hundreds of millions of dollars more for atorvastatin calcium than they would have paid," according to the complaint, which seeks triple damages and other remedies.

The lawsuit was filed in federal court in Trenton, New Jersey.
Pfizer denies the plaintiffs' claims and will defend itself vigorously, spokesman Christopher Loder said.

Pfizer is based in New York. Ranbaxy has U.S. offices in Princeton, New Jersey. Walgreen is based in Deerfield, Illinois; Kroger in Cincinnati; Safeway in Pleasanton, California; SuperValu in Eden Prairie, Minnesota, and independently owned HEB in San Antonio.

The case is Walgreen Co et al v. Pfizer Inc et al, U.S. District Court, District of New Jersey, No. 12-04115.